It seems to me that, despite the fact that we routinely come out on top of direct engagements, we're playing into the enemy's game so far as kinetic operations are concerned. Simply put, the experienced insurgent's strategy and tactics put him at an inherent advantage to our classically western forces.
Absolutely correct.

Our doctrine creates a large, concentrated force (especially with vehicles) that's easy to spot and hit (though admittedly very difficult to destroy), his heavily dependent on supporting fires and thus severely handicapped in fulfilling the light infantryman's job of closing with destroying the enemy. This creates several problems:

*We spend a massive amount of money to achieve relatively little effect, thus giving an already reluctant nation further incentive to back out
*We are more likely to cause civilian casualties
*It is much harder for us to fully pursue/destroy the enemy and hold the rugged terrain in which he operates.

The solution I propose is to create an eastern style kinetic force.
Also correct. However, I would submit that we CAN'T create an "eastern" style force due to the simple fact that we are not eastern. Militaries reflect the culture from which they arise. Our military reflects our culture, theirs reflects theirs. We can learn their lesson, but we can't be them.


Two things about your proposed force. One good thing, one bad thing.

The good thing: It's a fantastic idea. We need a force like that.

The bad thing: You're almost 235 years too late. You have heard of the Marine Corps, right? That's exactly how we're supposed to be operating, and have operated in the past. Lately, we've just forgotten it.